it s my understanding that they were in process through the national are archives, not partisan lawyers. republicans agree. 90% of elena kagan s white house records were publicly available and could be used freely by any member. by contrast, the committee has only 7% of brett kavanaugh s white house records. only 4% of those are available to the public. no centage or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral to designate documents committee confidential. so, i have no idea how that stamp committee confidential got on these documents. i sent a letter on august 10th, 2018, objecting to the blanket designation of documents as
documents were processed through the national archives, not private partisan lawyers and republicans agreed. 99% of kagan s white house records were publicly available and could be used freely by any member. by contrast, the committee has only 7% of brett kavanaugh s white house records. and only 4% of those are available to the public. no senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents committee confidential. so i have no idea how that stamp committee confidential got on these documents. i sent a letter on august 10th, 2018, objecting to the blanket designation of documents as committee confidential.
it s nuanced concern about abortion. you and i know the issue and the moral question there. this case, where do you see it going? where do you think it should go? well, i do think it is really complicated. i do not agree with those on either side who say it s obvious. however, i don t understand how you could give some kind of blanket designation to businesses that are for profit becoming, you know, being regarded as people with religious views. i mean, if you did that, i really do think it s important to see where would you draw the line, even if you only limited it as pete was saying earlier to mom and pop, to very small organizations. i could have a religious argument that i don t believe in child labor laws. i don t believe in vaccination. i don t believe in paying social security, whatever it is, i just don t know how that would be sort of narrowly tailored. and i don t understand how since a corporation is really a legal fiction designed to protect the people who design the com
it s nuanced concern about abortion. you and i know the issue and the moral question there. this case, where do you see it going? where do you think it should go? well, i do think it is really complicated. i do not agree with those on either side who say it s obvious. however, i don t understand how you could give some kind of blanket designation to businesses that are for profit becoming, you know, being regarded as people with religious views. i mean, if you did that, i really do think it s important to see where would you draw the line, even if you only limited it as pete was saying earlier to mom and pop, to very small organizations. i could have a religious argument that i don t believe in child labor laws. i don t believe in vaccination. i don t believe in paying social security, whatever it is, i just don t know how that would be sort of narrowly tailored.
it s my munderstanding those wee processed through the national archives, not private partisan lawyers, and republicans agreed. 99% of the white house records were publically available and could be used freely by any member. by contrast, the committee has only 7% of brett kavanaugh s white house records and only 4% of those are available to the public. no senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents committee confidential. so i have no idea how that stamp committee confidential got on these documents. i sent a letter on august 10th, 2018, objecting to the blanket